Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 22, 2026
A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss
Published on: April 11, 2025
Knowledge, attitude, practice and symptoms of computer vision syndrome: a comparative study among university students
Tadpong Tantipanjaporn1, Soranun Surapad2, Kwanjira Yatong3
1Division of Occupational Health and Safety, Faculty of Public Health, Naresuan University, 99 Moo 9, Thapo Sub-district, Muang District, Phitsanulok, 65000, Thailand. tadpongt@nu.ac.th.
Background:
Despite the high prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) in academic settings, there is a lack of comparative data regarding how different university cohorts manage these risks. This study evaluated and compared CVS knowledge, attitudes, preventive practices, and symptoms between undergraduate students and supporting staff at a university in Thailand.
Methods:
The study included 485 participants (269 students, 216 staff). A questionnaire assessed demographics, computer usage, CVS knowledge, attitudes, practices, and 16 CVS symptoms. Symptoms were evaluated on a 4-point frequency and 2-point intensity scale. The total CVS score was calculated by summing the products of frequency and intensity for each symptom; a score ≥ 6 indicated CVS presence. Statistical analyses included Chi-square tests (comparing prevalence between participant groups), independent t-tests (comparing mean CVS scores), Pearson correlation (relationships among knowledge, attitudes, and practices), and multiple linear regression (determining factors associated with CVS).
Results:
Most participants demonstrated moderate CVS knowledge (51.1%), attitudes (79.4%), and practices (76.1%). Staff had significantly higher knowledge and attitude scores, whereas students showed significantly better preventive practices. Overall, preventive practices were inversely correlated with knowledge (r = -0.246, p < 0.001) and attitude (r = -0.138, p = 0.002); however, stratified analysis revealed that this "knowledge-practice decoupling" was highly pronounced among support staff (knowledge: r = -0.389, p < 0.001; attitude: r = -0.169, p = 0.013) but non-significant among undergraduate students. Overall CVS prevalence was 70.3%, being higher in students (74.0%) than staff (65.7%). Students also reported significantly higher CVS scores (14.13 ± 10.35) than staff (11.81 ± 9.59, p = 0.011). In the pooled sample, the regression model revealed that CVS preventive practice was the only significant factor associated with lower CVS scores (B = -0.25, p = 0.022). However, stratified analysis indicated this effect was significant exclusively among support staff.
Conclusion:
Despite staff demonstrating better knowledge and attitudes regarding CVS, students showed higher preventive practices. However, CVS remains highly prevalent overall, especially among students. Since preventive practice was the only significant variable associated with CVS, targeted interventions should prioritize practical behavioural modifications.
